Thursday, February 13, 2014

When Media Become Lapdogs Rather Than Watchdogs

A little over a week has passed sincepolice
stormed the Musa Mosque in Mombasa, and killed
up to 9 people whom they accused of participating in a "jihadist
convention." Nearly 130 others, including children were arrested -58 have
since been released- and the rest charged with offences under Kenya’s terrorism
act. The police claim to have recovered terror training materials and
information indicating plans to attack an "unspecified target."

I think there is a lot that is disconcerting
about how this story is being told and the assumptions that have been made.
There is little questioning of the government narrative. The media appears to
have already made up its mind about what happened and has entirely ignoredalternative
versions of what happened.

Some things just don't seem to gel with the
“official truth”. To begin with, this was no secret meeting. The media has
reported that the convention was openly advertised on posters pasted across
town and on social media postings and that the authorities were well aware of
it. There is also considerable confusion over who called the meeting and what
exactly was to be discussed. The
Standard reportedthere were lectures “on
various topics justifying jihad, claiming conspiracies against Muslims and
exhorting the faithful to prepare for ishtishhaad (life of sacrifice)”.
However,Sheikh
Abdallah Kheir, an imam and lecturer of sociology at Kenyatta University, told
the pressthe meeting had been advertised merely as a religious
lecture. Some of those who claimed to have been there also seemed unaware they
were attending a "jihadist convention."

Further, it is unclear whether the meeting had
been prohibited (which would raise fundamental issues surrounding the legality
of any such a ban, and the impact on constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms of
assembly and speech -issues that the press has not bothered to address.) The
press reportedthat "authorities in
Mombasa" had said they "would not allow it to take place." But
these "authorities" do not appear to have made any effort to inform
the organizers that their meeting had been disallowed. Though in the aftermath
of the raid, the Mombasa County Police Commander was quoted as saying: "'we'
had issued a warning that we will not allow such a meeting because it was
illegal," other reports indicated thatthe Mombasa County Security Committee made no attempt
to stop it"anticipating that known hardcore jihadists would attend
it." In fact, "attending an illegal meeting" does notappear
to be one of the charges levelled in court in relation with the incident.

As I write this, the government has reportedly
arrested three persons in the capital, Nairobi, after police broke
upa
citizens' protest they had themselves cleared. The
demonstration, led by the activist Boniface Mwangi and the widely respected Rev
Timothy Njoya, was supposedlyoutlawed
by the shadowy National Security Advisory Councilwhich
accused the US Agency for International Development of plotting to topple the
government by financing demonstrations. Again, as the press has dutifully
parroted the government's ridiculous allegations and ignored the constitutional
issues, no one asks why it appears that the authorities once again appear to
have made no effort to inform organizers that their event was “banned” or which
law gave them the power to do so.

Going back to Mombasa, I am also greatly
concerned at the terms employed in the coverage, much of which mirrors the
distorted and lazy international reporting on seemingly all matters Muslim. The
press has branded the meeting an "outlawed jihadist convention" and
taken to calling those arrested (and, it would seem, pretty much any collection
of young men at the coast) "militants" or "radicalized
youth". We hear of "jihadist" flags and banners (apparently any
black cloth with Arabic-looking script) and everyday household items,including
scissors, a pair of pliers and a screwdriver, described as "weapons". There's a disturbing vagueness about what is meant by
radicalization. Who gets to decide who is a "radical preacher", which
youngsters have been "radicalized", and what a nice "moderate"
Muslim looks and sound like?

A few days after the Masjid Musa raid, a mob in
Kisumu defaced and forced the removal of a monument put up to commemorate a
century of Sikh presence in Kenya's third-largest city. In the days leading up
to the destruction of the statue,Christian
preachers were openly inciting their followersclaiming
the structure was "satanic" and attributing weather phenomena to its
erection. Despite this, no one called for regulation of sermons in Kisumu, the
shutting down of “radical preachers” in favor of “moderate Christians” or
characterized the violent youths as “militant” or “radicalized”.

It is clear that the government has for a long
time been uncomfortable with rising political consciousness at the coast and
elsewhere. Its standard response however has been one of demonization while
continuing to ignore the underlying grievances. Its dealings with civil society
critiques orthe
Mombasa Republican Council, for example, demonstrate
this clearly enough.

While there may be areas of legitimate security
concerns, such as recruitment into terror outfits like Al Shabaab and possible
terror plots, this does not give authorities carte blanche to ignore
constitutional limits and to deny fundamental freedoms. The constitution exists
primarily to constrain the power of government, not the rights of citizens.
Thus we really should be worried when government sets itself up as the public
censor, purports to ban speech and speakers it does not like and uses
"national security" as an excuse to close down the space for
political expression and protests.

Unfortunately, our press, more lapdog than
watchdog, has largely failed to question the motives and (mis)deeds of the
people in power. As we have seen before, it is ever happier cozying up to them
and helping to delegitimize their opponents. Like the mob in Kisumu, it is
quick to desecrate and deface, and slow to think and question.